Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 8479] New: gettimeofday returning 1000000 in tv_usec on core2duo

[Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>]

Bill Davidsen a écrit :
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 May 2007 08:06:52 +0200 Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Morton a écrit :
>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 21:17:47 -0700 bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8479
>>>>>
>>>>>            Summary: gettimeofday returning 1000000 in tv_usec on 
>>>>> core2duo
>>>>>     Kernel Version: 2.6.21
>>>>>             Status: NEW
>>>>>           Severity: normal
>>>>>              Owner: ak@suse.de
>>>>>          Submitter: dang@gentoo.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Most recent kernel where this bug did *NOT* occur: 2.6.20
>>>>> Distribution: Gentoo
>>>>> Hardware Environment: core2duo T7200 (all reporters had this same CPU)
>>>>> Software Environment: Linux 2.6.21, glibc 2.5
>>>>> Problem Description:
>>>>>
>>>>> gettimeofday returns 1 - 1000000 in tv_usec, not 0 - 999999 This 
>>>>> does not happen on any of my AMD-based 32 or 64 bit boxes, only on my
>>>>> core2duo; I have 2 other reports of this problem, all on T7200's
>>>>>
>>>>> Steps to reproduce:
>>>>>
>>>>> call gettimeofday a lot.  Eventually, you'll get 1000000 returned 
>>>>> in tv_usec. My
>>>>> average is ~1 in 1000000 calls.  I've attached my test program, 
>>>>> with output from
>>>>> various boxes.  One of the other reporters tried the test program 
>>>>> too, and got
>>>>> similar output.  .config will be attached too.
>>>> err, whoops.
>>> I remember I already hit this and corrected it
>>>
>>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blobdiff;f=arch/x86_64/kernel/vsyscall.c;h=dc32cef961950915fbaa185e36ab802d5f7cea3b;hp=ba330f87067996a17495f7d03466d646c718b52c;hb=c8118c6c07f2edfd697aaa0b93e08c3b65a5a675;hpb=272a3713bb9e302e0455c894c41180a482d2c8a3 
>>>
>>
>> Oh, OK.
>>
>>> Maybe a stable push is necessary ?
>>
>> yup.  Please always think of -stable when preparing fixes.  I'm sure many
>> useful fixes are slipping past simply because those who _are_ looking out
>> for backportable fixes are missing things.
>>
> That makes me feel better, I have been occasionally suggesting fixes 
> posted here as candidates for stable, I was afraid I was being a PITA. I 
> forgot about the "stable" address and have been bugging greg, I'll stop 
> that.

Well, it seems Andrew concern about 'stable' was not right for this particular 
patch, since I  posted it well before 2.6.21-final, and 2.6.20 was not concerned.